The Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn, created a new class of workers: quasi-public employees, who are not required to financially contribute to union activity. This reclassification has broad implications, possibly reshaping the collective bargaining landscape.
The facts of this case involve Pamela Harris, a non-union, home-care personal assistant (“PA”) working in Illinois. The Illinois Department of Human Services handles Medicare-waiver programs, through which patients suffering from disability may retain a PA. Illinois compelled all non-union PAs to pay an “agency fee” as a means of supporting the collective bargaining process. Collective bargaining takes place when an organized group of workers negotiates with the employer for wages and benefits. Ms. Harris, and several others similarly situated, brought suit to halt their mandatory contributions to the bargaining group.
Historically, the Court has allowed unions to require dues from non-members, because those unions must bargain on behalf of all workers in the trade. It was thought that allowing workers to reap the benefit of collective bargaining without financially supporting the union would create a “free-rider” problem.
This Court shifted the focus of its analysis to the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects individuals from “forced speech,” but this protection only prevents public entities (i.e., government actors) from forcing speech. Therefore, the distinction between public and non-public employee, became important for the Court. Rather than categorizing Ms. Harris as a public or non-public employee, the Court created a new middle-ground category: “quasi-public employees.”
According to the majority, the fact that patients control the hiring, firing, disciplining, and supervising of the PA working for them, is among a group of factors differentiating plaintiffs from “full-fledged public employees.”
The concepts in Harris v. Quinn, if applied broadly, could weaken the ability of public employees to organize a union.